Mr. Conor King:

I thank the members for their insightful questions. I will start chronologically with Deputy Brady. To facilitate other members, I will keep my responses brief. The first question was on whether the decline is irreversible. We have done much modelling, which has been submitted to the Commission on the Defence Forces. We have proven beyond a shadow of doubt that at the current rate of turnover, even with taking in 700 recruits and cadets every year, which is not sustainable and we have not bee able to do it, we are never getting back to a strength of 9,500. We need to get the turnover rate below 5% and to still bring in 600 people. Our modelling shows that if that happens, we will get there in 2026. Much work is required to ensure that we have the conditions to achieve that.

The Deputy also asked a question in regard to deployable personnel and what "deployable" means. For any modern armed force it means people who are not in full-time induction training, including recruits, cadets and apprentices. In our opinion, and that of the vast majority of armed forces around the world, they are not deployable, they are not fully trained and they are not safe to be deployed with a weapon, which is our stock and trade. The Deputy also mentioned a refusal to engage meaningfully and statements of Ministers and parity of esteem in regard to the pay negotiations. The difficulties we and other associations experience at pay negotiations are well known among the committee. When we have hope going into a negotiation that we are going to be treated equally - not in any special way, just equally - and we do not get that, it is very disconcerting for members. We were happy to hear the then Minister for Defence say in the Oireachtas that the Defence Forces would have a strong hand at the negotiation table. We received assurances in writing from the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform that that would occur. Sadly, that night, officials concluded an agreement but we had been locked out of pay talks for seven days at that point. I cannot be any clearer than that.

Reference was made to seven of the 15 projects in the high-level implementation plan. This is the real kicker for us. This is the one that really demoralises our members. We put so much work into and were committed to the Public Service Pay Commission. We got a second bite at the cherry specifically for the defence sector. Arising out of that came some measures but not enough to stop the high rate of turnover. I may be a bit theatrical, but we, at least, got a plan in terms of the high-level implementation plan. It is clear and states exactly what needs to be done. It sets specific timelines for specific projects. A programme management office was set up within the defence organisation to house and feed into this plan but it has been disbanded. That shows the approach in play. The Oireachtas is being told that the high-level implementation plan projects are being progressed, but we are not being let into any of them. As the general secretary of RACO, I have to put a stop to the idea that projects are being discussed in the context of future pay negotiations. The Dáil is being told this but it is not happening. The pay talks are done.

The high-level plan was not discussed, therefore, it was game over.

Deputy Brady asked about ICTU. Let me say at the outset that RACO has the height of respect for ICTU. We respect what it does for its members. It is extremely effective in how it represents its members. The Deputy will recognise that we spoke about the restrictions and constraints that are placed on military personnel. We cannot take industrial action, for example. We spoke about the unique nature of military service and how some constraints are placed on our members that are not placed on other public servants such as voluntary retirement ages, unlimited liability, etc. If we are consistently being told that we are unique, then we feel we have a right to argue that there should be unique provisions to compensate for these restrictions or constraints. Nobody had been able to explain to us how going into an umbrella body such as the Irish Congress of Trade Unions would actually make unique provision for our distinct requirements.

What we were calling for, therefore, was an independent pay review body, not exactly like other jurisdictions but one that was completely bespoke to the Irish Defence Forces. What we wanted from that was a standing body, which would be solely independent from the likes of the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform and that would have the latitude and autonomy to make interventions, to consistently go around to barracks to talk to all ranks and families and to look at accommodation and allowances. If there is a problem with ordnance or bomb disposal, for instance, look at perhaps a retention bonus for that. If there is an issue with, for example, accommodation, try to come up with an innovative solution for that. The thing about the review body, however, is that if it is going to be housed within national pay negotiations, then we and our members fail to see how it can make a difference and that is a problem. We are in a bit of a bind here.

The Deputy spoke about the working time directive and rightly referenced accelerated provision. There were accelerated provisions on two fronts with regard to resting after a specific weekend duty. We ended the practice of people who were up for 24 hours or who had spent 24 hours on duty going back to their place of work at half past eight the following morning, which was rife throughout the organisation. That was welcome.

The Deputy will have been told on many occasions by our management that there is ongoing engagement. The last meeting we had on the working time directive, despite asking every two months, was 24 July 2019. That is nearly two years ago. That is why we have regrettably had to resort to external avenues to vindicate the rights of our members. Let us not forget that this is a health and safety issue. The failure to implement the working time directive is directly leading to the burnout that is reflected in the exit survey and was also reflected, members might recall, in the University of Limerick, UL, workplace climate survey and focus group reports in 2015, 2016 and 2017.

The Deputy asked about the Naval Service. It is nine ships but an establishment for six. Why do we say that? The last reorganisation cut the establishment of the Naval Service even further by 60 personnel, which is fundamentally a ship's crew. It increased the number of ships from seven to nine, however. It is, therefore, a simple equation. If you add hardware and remove the ability to operate that hardware, you are set up to fail. This is before we talk about implementing the working time directive when, as we know, our members and PDFORRA's members spent many long hours at sea in contravention of the working time directive limit.

The Deputy asked about the recruitment drive. We would be the first to champion any innovation with regard to recruitment. We have even tried to make submissions to review Defence Forces recruitment through the high-level implementation plan. We have received absolutely no feedback, however. All we got was, "Thanks for your submission". What we would say simply is that recruitment must be underpinned by the correct conditions in terms of pay, work-life balance and service. If and when that occurs, we will be the first to promote recruitment and induction into the Defence Forces. We have not stopped doing that. The ironic thing is that we have a roadmap that was agreed by our members. I would like to bring in our president, Mr. Foley, to talk about the feeling on the ground when we signed up to this in 2019 versus the feeling on the ground now with regard to the lack of delivery.